It appears that the Sabah Forestry Department has issued complaints in all directions, including peculiarly to the police (but not to Sarawak Report itself), over articles published about the Sipitang SFI dispute which has left thousands of families destitute.

However, these complaints are confusing and contradictory, whilst also lacking specificity. Therefore, clarification is needed for Sarawak Report to have any idea as to which of our statements is in need of amendment, if any.

In the first article complained of Sarawak Report published evidence that timber was still being extracted and loaded onto barges for export from the state on November 21st, despite a court order that was issued on November 8th that all logging activities should cease in the SFI areas.

We therefore considered it correct to describe the activity as “illegal” in that it was in contravention of a court order.

The second article, now complained of, responded to an apparent Press Release, circulated widely in Sabah and then passed on to Sarawak Report, that consisted of an aggressive rebuttal of the original article. It was issued in the name of the Conservator of Forests, Frederick Kugan.

We published this Press Release in full in the second article, in which we commented on its contents.

This press release, entitled False Claim on ex-SFI Concession Area by SarawakReport, would appear to be a justification of all the actions taken by the Sabah Forestry Department during the course of the ongoing dispute with SFI and contains detailed facts about the case.

In our second article Sarawak Report pointed out that there were no significant “false claims” identified in that press release alleged to have been made by Sarawak Report.

To the contrary, the statement acknowledged the logging we had reported but gave an excuse.  The excuse was that the Sabah Forestry Department was conducting the timber removal as part of a responsible exercise to tackle diseased fungus ridden trees that had been identified in the area.

This confirmation in the press release that our original report was true does not seem to be contradicted in any of the later complaints by Mr Kugan either.

As a side note, the ‘Press Release’ berated Sarawak Report for allegedly claiming that dues to the state were not being paid, confirming instead that the public purse had benefited from export royalties.

In fact, Sarawak Report did not make such a claim.  What it actually reported was that the SFI complaint against the Sabah state government is that it has not received the dues payable to SFI. 

This is an entirely different matter and therefore SFD has made a false rebuttal based on a misunderstanding, which we are prepared to accept may have resulted from a failure to spot the words “according to the receivers of the company” within the sentence complained of!

However, as Sarawak Report’s second article pointed out, the acknowledgement that export dues have been paid provides a helpful confirmation of our report that the timber being taken from Sipitang is indeed being exported (according to our information the destination is Bintulu in Sarawak).

Again, this has not been contradicted by the Conservator of Forests in his later statements. So, again, where is the “false reporting” that SFD complains of?

What SFD have not done, in context of all its complaining, is to answer the question that our article has asked of them in the light of this explanation of disease, which is on what basis is Sabah exporting timber that is infected with fungus to another location within Malaysia, given the extremely tight regulations that rightly control the movement of diseased biological material?

Fake Press Release?

Rather than simply providing the answer to this question, the Conservator of Forests has instead launched on his tirade of accusations about false reporting which he has nonetheless failed to properly identify.

Indeed, we even remain even confused as to whether the press release itself is being disowned.  This is not helped by the different versions of the complaint appearing in different news outlets and indeed even in the same news outlets.

For example, The Borneo Post in its printed edition quotes Forest Conservator Kugan as saying “Sarawak Report falsely cited a press release it (SFD) issued on the [first] article“.

This would therefore appear to be an acceptance that the press release WAS issued by Sabah Forestry Department, whilst complaining that Sarawak Report falsely represented its contents.

Yet, an online edition of the very same newspaper quotes him differently. In this version Kugan is represented as saying not only that Sarawak Report  “falsely cited a press release by the SFD” but that “SFD denied having issued the press release.”

Surely it can’t be both?

Sarawak Report has a public email address and SFD are welcome to contact it – or to go public again – to explain which offence it is accusing us of in order that we can address the matter. We were gulled into publishing a fake press release or did we “maliciously” interpret a correct press release?

What Was Incorrect Anyway?

The ‘false’ press release tantrum to one side, Sarawak Report remains at a loss amidst all of this bluster as to what is factually incorrect in what we have so far reported.

This is not least because all we have seen from these ongoing rebuttals is a basic confirmation that a) logging continues b) this is because the trees are infected c) the extracted timber is being exported. These points are the substance of our reporting, so which is false?

The disputed press release gave the ‘diseased timber’ as an excuse for the continuing logging and pointed out this issue had been raised in the state parliament “earlier in the month“.

Mr Kugan in his later statement made the same point saying (according to the Borneo Post) that the matter of diseased timber had been discussed in the legislative assembly “last month” (reported differently as “in November” in the online edition).

Our own information is that the fungus disease was first disclosed in a written answer on November 20th, twelve days after the court order to stop logging.

No matter, however, because there is therefore clear agreement and confirmation by Mr Kugan that the ‘diseased timber’ is the reason for the continuing logging, which is what the disputed press release also said and what we reported.  So, where is the false reporting on this matter?

Does Sabah have the necessary permission to export ‘Diseased’ timber?

Our question, which seems to be the real issue behind this fuss, has not yet been answered on the other hand. It is, why is Sabah exporting fungus-diseased timber and what permissions and precautions have been obtained for it to do so?

Alternatively, if the timber that is being exported is not diseased why is it still being logged and transported away from the SFI site in contravention of a court order?

Apart from falsely rebutting a claim Sarawak Report didn’t not actually make (ie that royalties had not been paid on exported timber) the SFD has therefore yet to identify a single aspect of the two articles they have complained about that they have not themselves verified subsequently themselves.

Meanwhile, they have failed to answer pressing and important questions about the conditions under which they are exporting timber they have claimed to be diseased.

What is really behind the Sipitang Crisis?

Instead of attacking Sarawak Report and running off to the police station to issue extradition requests, surely the SFD should by now have launched an internal enquiry into the chaos and confusion surrounding this extraordinary case that has caused so much suffering to the families who have lost their livelihoods at Sipitang?

It did not have to be this way. As the contested press release acknowledges, the problems started when the Sabah state government decided to rescind the SFI licences that were in the hands of receivers on 1st September 2021.

This was just two weeks before the West Malaysian tycoon Syed Mochtar was due to make good the balance of RM1.2 billion he had agreed to pay for the concession under an earlier agreement with the state government and SFI itself.

By that point, Mr Mochtar had only paid 10% of what he had committed to pay and those close to SFI have indicated to Sarawak Report that he had started to show an unwillingness to meet that commitment as the pay date had approached.

Indeed, it is well known the Mr Mochtar had attempted to renegotiate his purchase price to a far lower level, which was rejected.

SFI are of the view that all the subsequent manoeuvres which have been aided by the state government through first the removal of licences, then the withdrawal of SFI’s loan by the Sabah Development Bank and finally a compulsory acquisition order by the state government (followed by an offer to settle for a total payment of just RM256 million) have been influenced by Mr Mochtar and his attempts to get the concession for a fraction of the market price that he had originally agreed to.

This is the argument before the court, which is being fiercely rebutted by the state government and will now go to judicial review.

Indeed, the state government say that Mr Mochtar is no longer involved in SFI and is not the beneficiary of any of the operations or licences being distributed by Yayasan Sabah which has wrested control of the area and is managing the logging.

This is contested by SFI and there are also concerns being raised by campaigners about the lawyer delegated by Sabah’s AG department to handle this SFI case, in that he is identified as having previously been close to Syed Mochtar’s own team of lawyers.

Perhaps the Forest Conservator ought to enquire therefore as to whether the press release issued in his name originated from this source, given it was so very well informed about Sabah Forestry’s own justifications, if misrepresentative of the article Sarawak Report wrote?

Altogether, a full clarification and explanation is now due.